Re: TECH: Narrative connectives?

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

la veion. cusku di'e

> Logically connected sentences
> 
>   (1) mi nelci ti .ije mi nelci ta
>       mi citka .ije mi pinxe
> 
> can be conveniently shortened to
> 
>   (2) mi nelci ti .e ta
>       mi citka je pinxe
> 
> However, there is no way to shorten a straigth narrative
> 
>   (3) mi nelci ti .i mi nelci ta
>       mi citka .i mi pinxe

Well, actually there are ways, using different mechanisms.  (I know you
know about these, but not everybody on this list will.)

3a)	mi nelci ti .i go'i ti
	mi citka .i pinxe

where the latter case elides x1 but is not a classic "observative". 

> in a similar way. Sometimes it would be quite natural and
> convenient to be able to say, e.g.
> 
>   (4) *mi nelci ti gi ta
>        I like this  ... and that
> 
>       *mi citka gi pinxe
>        I eat   ... and drink

I believe that this proposed change (whatever its syntax) would violate
the general nature of non-logical connectives (which is really what it is,
as you say below: a vague non-logical connective).  The essence of a non-
logical connective is that it doesn't transform into multiple sentences:
"mi pinxe loi ckafi ku joi loi tcati" is not the same as
"mi pinxe loi ckafi .ijoi go'i loi tcati", and it is questionable what
the latter might mean at all.

> Here {gi} is a new type of non-logical connective, a narrative
> connective. It builds loose compounds which don't fit well
> into the set of existing non-logical compound types.
> ({i} can be thought of as a narrative sentence connective.)

Your analysis is sound enough.

[material on afterthought comparisons deleted]

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.